COUNCILLORS are set to discuss controversial plans to cut the amount of rubbish buried in landfill sites in public after claims that decisions had been taken in secret.
And action groups today claimed that unless plans for two rubbish-burning incinerators at sites yet to be decided were removed from the controversial Waste Strategy, Lancashire could soon be pumped full of the dioxins being blamed for causing health problems.
Members of a quango called the The Lancashire Municipal Waste Management Steering Group -- made up of selected borough councillors, county councillors and paid officials -- has issued an action plan for handling the county's rubbish over the next 25 years.
The strategy is currently being studied by the 15 borough authorities in Lancashire after being approved by county councillors under their 'urgent business matters'.
This enables policies to be passed without going to committees and it at the heart of controversy among a number of local authorities.
At the heart of the plan is a cut in the amount of rubbish placed in landfill from 85 per cent to 20 per cent by 2010, with some 450,000 tonnes annually being disposed of by other means.
County Council chiefs claim that recycling is the best way forward, but have already warned that incinerators will be used if needs be.
However, following complaints from action group ARROW (Action to Reduce and Recycle Our Waste), which claims the strategy was formed undemocratically, county councillors have agreed to discuss the waste plan at their cabinet meetings, which are held in public.
ARROW member Nicola Escott said: "This matter did not go to the full county council for a vote. "They avoided debate by passing it through urgent matters when there was no urgency.
"Our solicitors said they did not act lawfully and we have now contacted the county council to express our opinion."
A county council spokesman said: "Lancashire County Council does not accept that it has acted unlawfully in adopting the Waste Management Strategy.
"A detailed response has already been sent to ARROW's solicitors, refuting their criticisms.
"However, as the county council is in the first phase of implementing new executive arrangements to make decision-making more transparent and accountable, it has been agreed to consider the Strategy under those arrangements.
"The matter will therefore be considered by the Cabinet in the near future.
"We will try other methods before using incinerators. If people don't want them, they need to to start recycling more."
Pendle county councillor David Whipp said: "We do need public discussion and an explanation of what it is all about.
"Nothing has been reported to us as councillors and that cannot be right.
"I do not think cabinet is the correct place to go for discussion. It is a one party state and we will not see much of a debate."
ARROW also claims the health risks of incinerators have not been discussed in full.
They cite a report in health journal The Lancet which claimed rubbish-burning incinerators in Belgium had produced dangerous pollutants.
These have led to boys living nearby developing smaller genitals and girls smaller breasts than those living in other areas.
"The scientific evidence is compelling but it is being ignored," added Nicola Escott.
The county council has declined to comment on the Lancet report.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article